9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards entry tax on the entry of goods under the abovementioned purchase orders dated October 13, 2008, is being paid by respondent No. 4 through the petitioner and for the said entry tax, the requisite return is being filed by respondent No. 4 and assessed by respondent No. 1. As regards, purchase order No. 3834 dated October 13, 2008 which relates to work order for civil, erection, testing and commissioning works and services, for the work executed under the said purchase order, as alleged, the petitioner has filed its quarterly returns within the respective due dates and the audit report for assessment year 2009-10 was filed in January, 2011 and audit report, including the turnover mentioned therein, has been accepted by the Department. The assessment, as provided under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the RVAT Act, 2003"), is to be made under section 24, however, the stipulation is contained under sub-section (5) that no assessment order under this section (section 24) shall be passed after expiry of two years from the end of the relevant year, however, the Commissioner holds competence for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend such ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative of the petitioner-company appeared on the date fixed before the assessing authority on September 17, 2012 and requested to grant time to study the voluminous documents supplied on September 10, 2012. Respondent No. 3 issued a notice to representative of the petitionercompany to appear on September 24, 2012, however, with the said notice, respondent No. 3 furnished additional set of documents running into more than 800 pages to representative of the petitioner-company which contained survey report dated July 26, 2012 prepared on the survey conducted at the project site way back on January 19, 2012. Prior to the date of hearing, which was September 24, 2012, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. 2 dated September 20, 2012 stating, inter alia, that the time granted till September 24, 2012 for personal appearance is insufficient as voluminous documents including the survey report needs time to be examined but the assessing authority fixed the matter on September 26, 2012 and since the petitioner was unable to examine the voluminous record made available to him at the last moment, a request was made for adjournment and the case was fixed for September 28, 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution has not to be entertained where effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and this rule applies with greater rigour in the matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. As regards, objection raised by the petitioner that September 28, 2012 was the last date fixed for hearing on which request for adjournment was declined and order of assessment impugned came to be passed by the assessing authority running into more than 900 pages being dictated which is humanly not possible. It has been averred by respondents in para 11 of the reply that assessment order is a detailed conclusion of systematic enquiry and it covers the proceedings from January 19, 2012 till September 27, 2012 and the documents relating to this period were ready and scanned before the final proceedings on September 28, 2012 on which date the decisive part of the order was prepared and after integrating it with rest of the order, final assessment order was passed by the assessing authority and to justify its action, counsel for the respondent submits that as the mandate of law provided under section 24 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated July 27, 2012, indisputably was served upon the petitioner on August 1, 2012 and if this court takes note of subsection (3) of section 25 of the RVAT Act, 2003 indeed the time was available with the assessing authority to make assessment under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the RVAT Act, 2003 and the Commissioner holds competence to extend time-limit by a further period of six months. However, under section 24 of the RVAT Act, 2003 for assessment year 2009-10 indisputably after the extension of time granted by the Commissioner was going to expire on September 30, 2012 but this fact cannot be ruled out that when the petitioner was served with the notice under sections 24 and 25 of the RVAT Act, 2003 in case of avoidance or evasion of tax, the mechanism which has been provided by the Legislature under section 25 of the Act could have been invoked to provide effective opportunity of hearing to the dealer and these being quasi-judicial proceedings, reasonable opportunity of being heard is a sine qua non and imperative for the assessing authority to be afforded to the dealer affected before passing of the order of assessment and an order of assessment impugned herein could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty which can certainly be re-looked on the appeal being preferred by the assessee for appreciation of his defence. In the instant case, there was no defence on record of the petitionercompany before the assessing authority, as it manifests from the record that for the first time notice under section 25 read with other provisions of the RVAT Act, 2003 dated July 27, 2012 was served on August 1, 2012 and the voluminous record running into more than 7,000 pages was made available to the petitioner on September 10, 2012 and the proceedings before the assessing authority, were going on day-to-day basis and the matter came to be listed on 17th September where the survey report dated July 26, 2012 which was the basis for issuance of notice dated July 27, 2012 running into 112 pages was supplied and next date was September 24, 2012 and September 26, 2012 and finally on September 28, 2012 when the authorized representative of the petitioner-company appeared before the assessing authority and requested for time to enable him to consult and submit his defence the assessing authority declined the request and passed the order of assessment dated September 28, 2012 running into 900 and odd page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
